Geography Discussion topic of the Week: "The Mexican Reconquista"

Inspired in other discussion topics that present a new topic every certain ammount of time (usually a day, but I'm giving a week here), I present you... the Geographical Topic of the Week.... Please try to keep a decent level of discussion here, so if you agree with someone and have nothing else to say, then save it to yourself.

The Mexican Reconquista

In the early days of Mexico, certain territories were under their possesion, such as California, Arizona, New Mexico and parts of Texas. After a war with the US all of these territories passed to the US, but most of the legacy remained, for example, the names of the Cities and some landmarks have names in Spanish such as San Francisco, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Sacramento, etc...

Nowadays, it seems that the Mexicans are flourishing in the area, due to inmigration (both legal and illegal) and also due to the fact that the population growth of the Mexican and hispanic populations are bigger than the non hispanic populations (Americans, African-American, Asian, etc). It's this situation that makes one feel that Mexico has reconquered their former domains. Will this mean that these states may end up in Mexico and leaving the US? I personally doubt it, but it remains as a possibility.

I'd like to hear the opinions of those living in the mentioned states and of course of all those that are interested.

Also I don't think that if you really argue that it feels as though Mexico has reconquered their former domains. Those of hispanic descent are still generally in a lower class in those areas than others - while latinos are rising up the various economic and political ladders they still have a relatively small degree of control over the policies of those respective states.

I grew up in the southeastern part of San Diego and at times it definately felt like Mexico was taking over just due to the huge number of people of hispanic descent but in reality San Diego and other border areas are still completely controlled by none other than good old fashioned Americans

I live in New Mexico and while the influx of Mexicans has been steady and significant for a long time, the way this plays out on the ground is far from any kind of reconquesta as many immigrants tend to live in the shadows and at the periphery of society. Firstly, New Mexico was part of Mexico for a very short time (only 27 years, 1821-1848) and the Spanish names that prevail harken to a much older legacy of New Spain which many families who have been here for hundreds of years identify strongly with.

Secondly, and stemming from this history, the "Spanish New Mexicans," that is, people who claim Spanish ancestry from a time earlier than the Mexican territorial period, see themselves as distinct from "Mexicanos" who are arriving now. There is a good deal of discrimination in this arena and Mexicans here typically hold positions of very low power and influence. Spanish New Mexicans often have different surnames and their Spanish is an older antiquated form that is easy to distinguish from Mexican Spanish. Mexicans in New Mexico are essentially shut out of many major social and political arenas and as such are much more in the shadows.

It is a funny experience when politicians come here trying to appeal to "the hispanic vote" because this population is so disparite and complex. In fact, I cannot think of a single common issue that cuts across the two main groups. Even language retention is fiercely debated with many feeling it is part of cultural preservation and others criticizing immigrants for not learning English. Bilingualism is strongly embraced (and taught in the public schools), but Spanish-only and English-only is viewed with suspicion by many Spanish speakers.

Interestingly, the strongest clashes between Mexicans (and their supporters) protesting the immigration reform package and those who support a more conservative agenda have been between immigrants and Spanish New Mexicans.

So, I don't see New Mexico as becoming part of Mexico really ever as the New Mexico Spanish would never stand for it.

So, I don't see New Mexico as becoming part of Mexico really ever as the New Mexico Spanish would never stand for it.

The only parts of the former Mexican Southwest I've been to are Nevada and Arizona, and only for short visits, so I can't speak with much authority. But I don't think there will be any push to get any of the Southwest back to Mexico. I think it will remain what it is today, only moreso -- a large borderland that mixes people and cultures and creates something very different than what exists in the middle of each nation.

The only parts of the former Mexican Southwest I've been to are Nevada and Arizona, and only for short visits, so I can't speak with much authority. But I don't think there will be any push to get any of the Southwest back to Mexico. I think it will remain what it is today, only moreso -- a large borderland that mixes people and cultures and creates something very different than what exists in the middle of each nation.

Exactly. As an Anglo, I can only speak for my impressions and conversations with folks, but a love for Mexican culture, family values, religion, and even the Spanish language does not translate into a love for PRI or PAN or the whole panoply of modern corruption, repression, and incompetence of the modern Mexican State.

La Reconquista has as much validity as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, outside a couple frigne groups 30 years ago. Except for, again, riling up "The Base" in the rest of the country.

What angers me most as that many (but still a minority) of Mexicans and Mexican-Americans claim that the Southwest is "stolen land." This is a lie. The territory was disputed in a war that Mexico LOST, and as part of the resolution, the United States PAID Mexico for that territory. Furthermore, only a miniscule percentage of Mexican-Americans living in that area had ancestors who had settled there when that Mexican land became American. The majority of ancestors of Mexican-Americans today had never even set foot in land that is the US today until after it formally became known as the US.

I don't feel the need to euphemise this: I think the Reconquista is garbage. There is nothing to reconquer, and the people trying to "do" the reconquering don't even have legitimate history to link themselves to the land they claim as "theirs." I would have more or a right to storm Saint Augustine (Florida) and demand it be returned to Spain than what a small and vocal minority of Mexicans is demanding be done with the Southwestern US. However, I actually appreciate the fact that Florida is now part of the US, and in South Florida we proudly fly the AMERICAN FLAG next to the Cuban, Argentinean, Spanish, Brasilian, Venezuelan ones instead of disrespectfully burning it and flying it backwards as some Reconquista sympathisers did in LA during the immigration rallies.

To be honest, I really don't know exactly what people mean by "reconquista" other than the literal translation. It is true, however, that many people here (including the Spanish New Mexicans I mentioned) have roots in what is today Mexico. Juan de Ońate, the man who led the first settler expedition into New Mexico, was actually born in Mexico City. Many of the early settlers here were also Spaniards born or at least living in Mexico and who came here partly to avoid the inquisition as it reached the New World. Many also have ancestors who were from indigenous Mexican groups that assisted the Spanish or were enslaved by them.

What I wondered, then, is if the "reconquista" concept is about Mexican nationality (and an historical claim to that region) or more about the prominence of the Mestizo culture that emerged from the interactions between Native peoples and the Spanish and who had control taken from them when the Anglo settlers and US government arrived.

Again, I don't really know anything about the "reconquista" concept, so I am just speculating here. I guess my main point is that Mexicanos and Nuevo Mexicanos, for example, share a common history and heritage and this business of international borders is a more recent development that serves to divide the population rather than emphasize commonalities.

What angers me most as that many (but still a minority) of Mexicans and Mexican-Americans claim that the Southwest is "stolen land." This is a lie. The territory was disputed in a war that Mexico LOST, and as part of the resolution, the United States PAID Mexico for that territory.

I thought the Southwest was clearly Mexico's prior to 1846, but Mexico was unable to administer the land because of its lack of population and distance from Mexico City. In any event, the US had been seeding people in Texas and California prior to the war, because Southerners were looking to expand their slavery base and there was that whole Manifest Destiny thing. We fought a war to obtain the "privilege" to buy the land.

Hey, there are some of us in Texas not obcessed with our yards! (sorry jread, it had to be said)

If Texas were to do anything, it would try to become it's own country again. Heck, we have more than our fair share of nutjobs running around saying Texas was illegally made part of the U.S. anyway and still believe Texas is independent. They print Republic of Texas money, have a "President", the whole nine yards.

Back on topic...

It's one thing to embrace Mexican culture, but entirely something else to embrace their government. If there was a picture to compliment government ineptitude in the dictionary, a Mexican flag would be right next to it. It doesn't help that politics there are dictated by machismo and legacy-building, which has led to plenty of horrific decisions leaving Mexico where it is today--reliant on the U.S. economic strength.

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

"Rarely do we find men who willingly engage in hard, solid thinking. There is an almost universal quest for easy answers and half-baked solutions. Nothing pains some people more than having to think."
Martin Luther King, Jr.

What if some of the Mexican states wanted to leave Mexico and join the US? What if Sonora and Chihuahua asked for admission to the union? Other border states?

Seriously, though, I would think that the Baja Peninsula would be the farthest along in that line.

It has not been often reported here in the US of A, but the Baja Peninsula has been seeing a *MASSIVE* influx of USAians over the past couple of decades, mainly retirees going there for the sun, shorelines, cheap living, and so on, kind of like a non-USA Florida. They are demographically taking over many of its smaller communities, speaking English, using USA money, etc, and it has officials of both of its Mexican states, especially Baja California Sur, worried silly.

Also, and I have no idea if it is true or not, but I read not long ago that in the late 1980s, the Reagan administration may have sent feelers to Mexico about helping their country out of its severe economic meltdown at the time by offering Mexico several hundred billion dollars in cash in exchange for the Baja Peninsula (sort of a 'Seward's Folly' 2.0).

Geographically, the Baja Peninsula has oodles of connections to the USA, but only a single track railroad and one two-lane road connects it to the rest of Mexico.

Sonora would be interesting, potentially another Arizona, but with a salt-water coastline.

Logistically, as for various new areas (not just Mexican, but from Canada or anywhere else, too) requesting annexation, after some soul-searching on the part of Congress, I could see current Mexican states being made into Puerto Rico-style non-state territories in order to give them the time that they'd need to get up to speed on the USA way of life and politics. Actual admission into statehood and its timing would then be a purely political decision, happening when Congress is comfortable with their progress and the residents formally request it.

What angers me most as that many (but still a minority) of Mexicans and Mexican-Americans claim that the Southwest is "stolen land." This is a lie. The territory was disputed in a war that Mexico LOST, and as part of the resolution, the United States PAID Mexico for that territory. Furthermore, only a miniscule percentage of Mexican-Americans living in that area had ancestors who had settled there when that Mexican land became American. The majority of ancestors of Mexican-Americans today had never even set foot in land that is the US today until after it formally became known as the US.

I don't feel the need to euphemise this: I think the Reconquista is garbage. There is nothing to reconquer, and the people trying to "do" the reconquering don't even have legitimate history to link themselves to the land they claim as "theirs." I would have more or a right to storm Saint Augustine (Florida) and demand it be returned to Spain than what a small and vocal minority of Mexicans is demanding be done with the Southwestern US. However, I actually appreciate the fact that Florida is now part of the US, and in South Florida we proudly fly the AMERICAN FLAG next to the Cuban, Argentinean, Spanish, Brasilian, Venezuelan ones instead of disrespectfully burning it and flying it backwards as some Reconquista sympathisers did in LA during the immigration rallies.

See my earlier post. The propoaganda is doing exactly what it is supposed to do-rile up the base.

Heck, I don't disagree with you vis a vis the ridiculous argument that a peasant from Michoacan or Oaxaca has some mystical blood right to land in Northern California. But then, I'm not a big fan of blood right nation states to begin with. Heck, I'm leaning toward free market compacts of independent city-states, myself. I remember a lengthy debate with a (now banned) San Diegan on this very board.

Relax. There is no "reconquista." Just like there really, really is no ZOG (Zionist Occupation Government) nor plans to fly U.N. Helicopters over the midwest (American concentration camps-built by our War Party's Vice President's company-that's another story.). Hugo Chavez is not conspiring with Iran to conquer the US.

I for one, as most of you, don't think that Mexico can reconquer politically speaking said area. Demographically speaking they're underway... and while it's true that most of them are poor and will continue to be that way (specially the illegal inmigrants), that is a problem that just needs a spark (think a Mexican Rodney King) and it'll blow up.

The reverse opinion (Baja California and/or other Mexican states joining the USA) is also valid, yet you need more than a demographic invasion to conquer it...

The only thing holding Mexico together as a country is black Aztec voodoo. That's why so many people are fleeing to the U.S. I wouldn't worry about Mexico annexing Arizona, but a large number of people who have no official status as Americans and a strong national identity could create a lot of problems for politicians.

The only thing holding Mexico together as a country is black Aztec voodoo. That's why so many people are fleeing to the U.S. I wouldn't worry about Mexico annexing Arizona, but a large number of people who have no official status as Americans and a strong national identity could create a lot of problems for politicians.

Let me guess, to solve the problem they should form a private government that will ban cars?

I imagine that the things produced by these states would become much more expensive due to having to be "imported" into the country.

In a world moving more and more towards "free trade" (for large corporations, at least. Certainly not for people who want to follow the jobs. We have to keep THEM trapped in the old nation states.) how would this automatically be the case?

Besides, what do any of the United States really "produce" any more? Breaking off California and Texas would have minimal impact on the flood of cheap Asian goods that our large companies have arranged for us to consume (until the dollar collapses, at least).

In a world moving more and more towards "free trade" (for large corporations, at least. Certainly not for people who want to follow the jobs. We have to keep THEM trapped in the old nation states.) how would this automatically be the case?

Besides, what do any of the United States really "produce" any more? Breaking off California and Texas would have minimal impact on the flood of cheap Asian goods that our large companies have arranged for us to consume (until the dollar collapses, at least).

Texas and California produce many things that cannot be easily imported (without high cost), such as California's agricultural production and Texas' energy production (not to mention massive oil and chemical refining).

Texas and California produce many things that cannot be easily imported (without high cost), such as California's agricultural production and Texas' energy production (not to mention massive oil and chemical refining).

What the hell do you mean by that? They are still being "imported" as part of the United States. You still have to physically move the product from one place to another. A change in jurisdiction is not going to affect how the product is moved.